Related articles:

Cox Cable seeks law tying city to old pact

Other articles by Daniel Scarpinato:

AZ budget game goes into overtime Redo budget, Brewer tells lawmakers Senate sends bill for Pima baseball-tax vote to Brewer Legislators OK change to Tucson elections Gov. Brewer follows through on veto threat, orders lawmakers to return

Other articles by Rob O'dell:

New exec: Smaller steps key to Downtown2 Rio Nuevo design firms ranked tops in profitabilityCity to close for 5 added days to save some moneyCouncil: 'Safety initiative' means huge tax hikeDevelopers want Rialto's back rent

Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps

PHOENIX — A House committee took the first step Tuesday toward legislation to block Tucson from bypassing the requirements of a new state cable-television law.

The current bill would prevent Tucson from negotiating a new cable agreement with Cox Communications that forces the company to do more than what state law requires.

That state law, passed by the Legislature last year, means that without a new franchise agreement with Cox the city's number of public access channels would drop by more than half. It would also reduce the company's franchise fees, which are paid by Cox customers, from nearly 8.5 percent to 5 percent.

On Tuesday, HB 2069 was passed by the House Committee on Counties, Municipalities and Military Affairs on a 6-4 vote after an hour and a half of discussion in which members tried to make sense of arguments from Tucson and Cox.

The new legislation was introduced as a strike-all bill. Although the deadline for introducing new bills has passed, a strike-all bill is a procedural move that replaces the language of an existing bill with new content.

At times, members expressed frustration over the failure of Cox and Tucson to agree without involving the Legislature.

Ultimately, the issue didn't break down along party lines, with Tucson Reps. Tom Prezelski, a Democrat, and Marian McClure, a Republican, voting against the bill. They were joined by Democrats Theresa Ulmer and Manuel Alvarez, who also represents parts of Southern Arizona.

But to the surprise of foes of the measure, Democrat Albert Tom voted for it, giving the measure the one vote it needed to advance.

Members in favor of the proposal, however, cited concerns about local control and warned they might not support the legislation when it comes up for a vote on the floor.

"I do struggle," said Republican Rep. Russell Pearce, before casting his "yes" vote.

Prezelski, upset by Tom's vote, said, "This is an issue best handled by local government."

"The access channels actually have a lot of public support," he said.

McClure said she couldn't support something that might harm the area she represents.

After about a year of negotiations, franchise-renewal talks between the city and Cox have reached a standstill.

Without this bill, if the two sides can't resolve their differences, the current franchise agreement would continue in place, which Tucson says would give it some leverage in the negotiations. The current franchise agreement is to expire Aug. 31.

The Tucson City Council voted unanimously during its study session Tuesday to oppose the bill.

"Cox's legislative effort is nothing more than an effort to ignore the voices and preferences of local citizens," said Councilwoman Karin Uhlich, reading the motion. "This is irresponsible, and the city condemns these efforts."

Cox contends that the city is purposely trying to avoid the implementation of the state law.

"The loser in all of that is the taxpayer," said Susan Bitter Smith, who represents the cable industry.

Cox spokeswoman Susan Anable said the company is trying to make sure cable customers receive "tax relief," but Prezelski pointed out that the savings would be a dollar or two a month. He also pressed Anable on whether the company would raise rates after the fees reduction, pocketing the difference.

"Certainly, that's a pretty interesting conspiracy theory," Anable said after the hearing. "But the fact of the matter is, we are like any other business out there; we have a product that we pay for ... and if the costs of those services go up, unfortunately we have to pass those costs along to the customer."